USE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF BILLBOARDS

Perspectives from Selective-Perception Theory and Retail-Gravity Models

Charles R. Taylor, George R. Franke, and Hae-Kyong Bang

ABSTRACT: A survey reveals four primary reasons why businesses use billboard advertising: visibility, media efficiency,
local presence, and tangible response. Insights on the relative importance of these factors are provided by retail-gravity
models and selective-perception theory, along with recency planning in media strategy. The study also identifies eight
executional factors that are associated with successful billboard advertising: name identification, location of the billboard,
readability, clarity of the message, use as a tool of integrated marketing communications (IMC), powerful visuals, clever
creative, and information provision. Moderating effects of company size, company type, and level of billboard usage
are examined. The results go beyond existing textbook and trade-press discussions to document the factors that make
billboards an important promotional tool.

Recent years have seen growth in outdoor advertising rev-
enues. According to the Outdoor Advertising Association of
America, annual revenues were $2.8 billion in 1993; over the
following 10 years, expenditures almost doubled, increasing
to $5.5 billion in 2003. This rise has occurred in spite of the
loss of cigarette advertising on billboards due to the Master
Settlement Agreement of 1998 and a decline in the relative
proportion of billboards for alcoholic beverages (OAAA 2004).
In recent years, a broader range of product categories has been
advertised on billboards, led by a variety of retail and service
businesses. Zenith Optimedia classifies outdoor advertising as
a “major medium,” along with television, radio, newspapers,
magazines, the Internet, and cinema. Zenith Optimedia proj-
ects continued growth in outdoor advertising expenditures,
and ranks outdoor as the fifth largest advertising medium
worldwide, behind only television, newspapers, magazines,
and radio (Zenith Optimedia 2005). Despite revenue growth,
however, outdoor advertising remains “one of the least re-
searched of any mass medium” (Katz 2003, p. 92). Even among
the limited number of studies that have been conducted, few
have focused on what factors drive its effectiveness (Donthu,
Cherian, and Bhargava 1993).
Charles R. Taylor (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is the John A.
Murphy Professor of Marketing, College of Commerce and Finance,
Villanova University.
George R. Franke (Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill) is a Professor and Reese Phifer Fellow of Marketing, Culver-
house College of Commerce and Business Administration, University
of Alabama.
Hae-Kyong Bang (Ph.D., Michigan State University) is an as-
sociate professor of marketing, College of Commerce and Finance,
Villanova University.
The growth of outdoor advertising has included a consider-
able increase in the use of nontraditional formats, including
street furniture (e.g., bus shelters, kiosks), alternative media
(e.g., arenas and stadiums, airborne, marine), and transit (e.g.,
buses, airports). The focus of this study is on billboards, however,
which remain the most common form of outdoor advertising.
Numerous academic articles, textbooks, and industry
publications list key advantages and disadvantages of outdoor
advertising/billboards in comparison to other media. No prior
study has examined managerial perceptions of the primary rea-
sons for using billboards, however. Moreover, despite numerous
discussions of factors associated with billboard advertising
success, the literature does not address the attributes of the
medium that users see as the primary factors associated with
successful billboard advertising.
The purpose of this paper is to address these gaps in the lit-
erature by reporting the results of a survey of businesses that use
or have used billboard advertising. The issues addressed are:
1. What are the primary reasons that companies decide to
continue using billboards? What is the relative importance
of these reasons?
2. What strategic and executional factors do managers
believe are critical to the success of a billboard campaign?
3. What is the relationship between the reasons for using
billboards and the strategic and executional factors necessary
for success?
This study first examines why companies use billboards,
The paper was funded by the Department of Management and Mar-
keting at the University of Alabama and the Center for Marketing
and Public Policy Research at Villanova University.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 21–34.
© 2006 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350402
22 The Journal of Advertising
and then considers how to use them effectively. It also intro-
duces two theoretical perspectives, based on gravity models
and selective perception, to aid in a better understanding of
what drives the effectiveness of outdoor advertising. The re-
mainder of the paper contains a review of academic research
on the characteristics of billboard advertising, followed by a
description of the conceptual framework guiding the study.
The study’s methods are then described, results are discussed,
and implications and conclusions are drawn.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Characteristics of Billboards Versus Other Media
Textbook authors and academic researchers have identified a
variety of distinctive characteristics of billboards and outdoor
advertising (e.g., Kelley and Jugenheimer 2004; Sissors and
Baron 2002; Taylor 1997; Vanden Bergh and Katz 1999;
Woodside 1990). The advantages of using billboards include,
among other things: (1) potential placement of the advertise-
ment close to the point of sale, (2) high frequency of exposure
to regular commuters, (3) high reach, (4) 24-hour presence,
(5) geographic flexibility for local advertisers, (6) economic
efficiency in terms of low production costs and low cost per
thousand exposures, (7) visual impact from advertisement
size and message creativity, and (8) brand awareness. Disad-
vantages include: (1) the need to limit the number of words
in the message, (2) short exposure to the advertisement, (3)
low demographic selectivity, and (4) measurement problems.
A recent study of billboard users found that compared with
other media, billboards were rated higher in terms of ability
to (1) communicate information affordably, (2) attract new
customers, and (3) increase sales (Taylor and Franke 2003).
While many advantages of billboards have been identified
anecdotally, from experience, or through academic study, there
is a need to investigate whether frequently listed advantages
overlap with each other, and to examine whether they truly
are advantages that are important to billboard users.
Executional Factors Associated with
the Success of Billboards
Relatively few studies have attempted to examine executional
factors associated with the effectiveness of billboard advertis-
ing. However, a few have provided very specific advice for
outdoor advertisers. In examining the outcomes of outdoor
advertising, some studies found that a novel or very creative
execution could improve recall or attention to billboards (Fitts
and Hewett 1977; Hewett 1975). Thus, use of a clever creative
execution is one factor that has been hypothesized to correlate
with effective outdoor advertising.
In a content analysis of billboards, Blasko (1985) examined
whether advertisers were following accepted creative principles
associated with outdoor advertising. Drawing on Burton’s Adver-
tising Copywriting (1983) and the Traffic Audit Bureau’s Planning
for Out-of-Home Media (1977), Blasko listed five main principles
of effective billboard advertising: (1) short copy (eight or fewer
words in copy), (2) simple background, (3) product identification
(billboard clearly identifies product or advertiser), (4) simple
message (single message communicated), and (5) creative (use
of clever phrases and/or illustrations).
Studies conducted by Donthu, Cherian, and Bhargava
(1993) and Bhargava, Donthu, and Caron (1994) found recall
of billboards to be positively related to a variety of factors,
including brand differentiation, emphasis on product perfor-
mance, inclusion of price, use of a photograph, use of humor,
use of color, and a good location for the billboard. The 1993
study emphasized that advertising recall can be enhanced by
using fewer words or unusual executions.
As with the key advantages of outdoor advertising, there
have been many discussions of strategic and executional fac-
tors related to the success of billboards, but little systematic
investigation of the underlying factors that drive successful
billboard advertising. Below, we offer some insight on these
factors by providing two theoretical perspectives on the pro-
motional role of billboards.
CONCEPTUAL RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES
Two theoretical perspectives are used as a basis for hypotheses
in this study. First, because humans have limited informa-
tion-processing capacity, part of the attraction of billboards
involves their ability to cut through clutter. To deal with the
large volume of advertisements shown, people engage in selective
perception, which involves screening out advertisements that are
less relevant to them (Celsi and Olson 1988; Mowen and Minor
1998). Second, because a billboard appears at a specific loca-
tion, many of its advantages are linked to geographic factors.
As is suggested by gravity models in retailing (e.g., Allaway,
Berkowitz, and D’Souza 2003; Bell, Ho, and Tang 1998), in
the absence of a compelling stimulus such as substantially
larger floor space for selling, consumers are more prone to
shop closer to home.
Selective Perception and Clutter
A key obstacle to advertising effectiveness is the volume of
advertising to which consumers are exposed. Godin (1999)
reports that an average consumer is exposed to approximately
one million marketing messages every year. To help manage
this volume of information, consumers control their own infor-
mation processing and engage in selective perception, which
leads to processing only a limited number of advertisements
and ignoring many others.

Selective perception has been conceptualized as a four-part
process consisting of selective exposure, attention, compre-
hension, and retention. In an advertising context, selective
exposure refers to people limiting the communications they
see and hear to those that conform to their preexisting ideas
and attitudes (Burgoon, Hunsaker, and Dawson 1994). Se-
lective attention refers to actually paying attention to the
advertisement once exposed to it. Selective comprehension
involves the process by which the consumer reconciles the
advertisement’s content with preexisting beliefs. Finally,
selective retention is defined as remembering messages that
are more consistent with one’s prior beliefs and one’s own
self-image. When related to advertising, these four stages
generally must occur before the advertisement reaches the
consumer. At a minimum, attention and retention must take
place (Assael 1981). As a result, advertisers must consider
how selective perception is affecting their ability to get a
message through to consumers.
Because of the heavy volume of advertising to which con-
sumers are exposed, they must decide which advertisements
to screen out and which to process. As media-planning expert
Erwin Ephron has observed, outdoor advertising is unique in
that people are not involved in the medium as they would be
when watching a television program or reading the newspaper.
As a result, Ephron (2004) has described outdoor advertising
as a unique case in which the “medium is the message.” When
driving by a billboard, a motorist is not bombarded with other
media options, so selective perception is not as much of an
obstacle as in some other media. Although the short exposure
time and lack of involvement in the medium mandate that
higher frequency of exposure is necessary for billboards to have
the same impact as other media (Cannon and Riordan 1994;
Murray and Jenkins 1992), the ability to cut through a clut-
tered advertising environment is a key benefit of billboards.
In short, billboards have a special advantage in that they are
generally seen in a setting where there is less competition for
people’s attention. As a result, they may appeal to advertisers
because of their ability to get noticed, especially at times and
places when consumers are considering a purchase or are ready
to buy (e.g., billboards for tourist attractions, retail stores,
and restaurants). There are, of course, some contexts in which
billboards are used for brand building and/or supplementing
other media, but the recent shift toward local retail and service
businesses accounting for a high proportion of billboards is
indicative of the applicability of billboards being present at
the right time (e.g., when a motorist is looking to stop for a
meal).
Gravity Models
Dating back to Reilly’s law of retail gravitation (Reilly 1931),
it has been theorized that in the absence of a known major
Winter 2006 23
advantage of an alternative (such as larger floor space), consum-
ers will shop closer to home. Building on Reilly’s law, Huff
(1964) focused on the spatial behavior of shoppers. At the
heart of Huff’s law is the notion that travel time to a shopping
center is inversely related to the likelihood of shopping there.
In other words, the greater the distance to the shopping area,
the less likely the consumer is to make a trip there. Huff and
subsequent modelers (e.g., Bell, Ho, and Tang 1998) have
examined factors that can induce consumers to travel further.
The overriding assumption of these models is that some ad-
ditional attraction must be present to offset distance, thereby
making close locational proximity an advantage in most retail
contexts.
Because gravity models suggest that consumers have a
natural preference for traveling shorter distances and shop-
ping at nearby places, it follows that billboards that point the
consumer to a nearby location will have a stronger influence
on store traffic and sales. The idea that billboards located in
close proximity to the store are advantageous from a gravity
perspective is also consistent with the media-planning ad-
vantages of billboards, namely, high reach and frequency in a
local trade area. A study by Allaway, Berkowitz, and D’Souza
(2003) supports the notion that the billboards in close prox-
imity to a store enhance gravity effects. In examining the
spatial diffusion of a loyalty card for a major U.S. retailer, the
authors found a relationship between distance from the store
and likelihood of signing up quickly. They also found a sig-
nificant billboard effect, stating, “Even within the 0–3-mile
ring nearest the store, non-adopters were significantly further
from the nearest billboard than adopters” (p. 144). Allaway
and Berkowitz (2006) further found that residents who lived
within two miles of a billboard advertising the program had a
26% higher probability of adoption during the launch period,
and that the speed of adoption was influenced by the number
of billboards within two miles of the resident. Additional
evidence for the influence of locational elements on billboard
effectiveness is provided by Bhargava and Donthu (1999),
who found that sales response to billboards is influenced by
location of exposure.
In addition to academic research suggesting that billboard
effectiveness is related to location, the well-documented fact
that most retail businesses draw most of their customers from
a limited geographic area supports the application of gravity
models to billboards. For example, Nelson and Niles (2000)
cite data from the International Council of Shopping Centers
that indicate that a neighborhood strip mall’s primary trade
area is consumers within 3 miles, whereas regional malls draw
from 5 to 15 miles, and outlet malls from 25 to 75 miles. In
addition, data from the National Association of RV Parks and
Campgrounds based on studies from state tourism depart-
ments show that travelers generally do not consider dining,
accommodation, and entertainment options until 30 to 60
24 The Journal of Advertising
minutes prior to making a stop. While the primary trade area
for retailers and service business can range from very small for
small businesses such as independent restaurants, gas stations,
and convenience stores, to being considerably larger, as in the
case of amusement parks or large shopping malls, the need to
reach consumers in the local area is readily apparent.
The locational advantages of outdoor advertising are con-
sistent with the need to engage in “recency planning” (Ephron
1997). In the modern environment, advertising works by
influencing those who are ready to buy. In this new model,
“consumers control messages by screening-out most and se-
lecting only a few that are relevant to them at the time. The
new model accepts the relevance that what makes ads work
is provided by what is happening in the consumer’s life and
seldom by the advertising” (Ephron 1997, p. 61). The ability
to avoid being screened out via selective perception processes
allows many billboards to get noticed at the point at which
the driver is considering a purchase.
Hypotheses and Research Questions
Billboard characteristics that influence a business to use the
medium may pertain, in part, to both gravity and selective-
perception issues. In terms of providing advantages for bill-
board users, however, two broad factors can be categorized as
being more closely associated with gravity, while two others
are more closely associated with selective perception. The fac-
tors more closely linked to gravity are tangible response and local
presence. Tangible response refers to the ability of billboards
to bring in customers, increase traffic, and build sales. There
is widespread agreement that a billboard’s ability to attract
customers is closely linked to its proximity to the place of
business (e.g., Taylor and Franke 2003), thereby linking this
factor to gravity models. The ability to build a local presence
based on providing a “last hit” close to the place of business is
also linked to retail gravity. Furthermore, the gravity model
is linked to Ephron’s concept of recency planning, in that a
billboard’s proximity to the place of business enhances the
likelihood of a stop at a time when the consumer is ready
to buy. Thus, gravity helps explain the place advantage that
billboards have over other media.
Two factors that are more closely tied to selective-perception
theory are visibility and media efficiency. Visibility, which refers
to the ability of a billboard to make a strong visual impression,
allows billboards to break through the clutter. Media efficiency,
such as broad and frequent exposure to the target audience,
suggests that the medium is effective and cost-efficient since
it is being noticed even in a competitive environment.
Although the literature indicates that both the gravity
and selective-perception factors are important advantages of
billboards, it is not clear which factors are more important to
businesses in terms of their reasons for continuing to use the
medium. An a priori case can be made for a prediction in either
direction, indicating that neither an exploratory approach nor
the specification of a single dominant hypothesis is appropri-
ate (Armstrong, Brodie, and Parsons 2001). Therefore, we
develop alternative competing hypotheses without choosing
one over the other.
Findings of gravity models have consistently verified the
importance of location in retailing (e.g., Allaway, Berkowitz,
and D’Souza 2003; Bell, Ho, and Tang 1998; Huff 1964;
Reilly 1931). As a result, it can be argued that exposure to an
advertisement in close proximity to a retail outlet can be more
valuable than exposures that take place farther away. In essence,
because of the tendency for consumers not to drive farther than
they deem necessary to get to a retail location, exposure to the
advertisement in close proximity to the store may be of key
importance. Thus, one reasonable hypothesis is:
H1a: Gravity-related factors are more important than selective-
perception factors in the decision to use billboards.
An alternative case can be made for the central importance
of overcoming selective perception. In a cluttered environment,
where many advertisements compete for attention, it is critical
for advertising to get noticed and, in turn, processed by the
consumer. Because advertisements that are not noticed will
not be effective, high visibility and frequency of exposure at
an affordable price may be key contributors to the message
being perceived and in it having an impact. We therefore
hypothesize that
H1b: Selective-perception factors are more important than
gravity-related factors as a reason for using billboards.
Prior research has suggested that many smaller businesses
and travel-related retailers, such as hotels, restaurants, and
tourist attractions, often use billboards as a central part of their
media mix (Taylor and Franke 2003). Therefore, in conjunc-
tion with testing these hypotheses, we will also address the
following research question:
RQ1: Do the reasons for using billboards vary by number of
billboards used per month, company size, or company type?
Factors Associated with Effectiveness
The literature suggests that for a billboard to be effective, it
must communicate a relevant message in a clear, interesting,
and readable manner to the appropriate audience. It must also
be at an appropriate location in order to be seen by the target
audience. Therefore, a straightforward expectation is that
message, format, and location are important factors associ-
ated with the effectiveness of billboard advertising. Relevant
message factors include name identification and other infor-
mation about the company or its products, the creativity of
execution, and the integration of the billboard content with

the company’s other promotional messages. Format factors
include the readability of the verbal message, the brevity and
simplicity with which the message is presented, and support
of the verbal message with effective visuals. Location involves
the appropriateness of where the billboard is placed.
Individual executional factors can be equally important
for both gravity and selective-perception views of the role of
billboards. Location, for example, can relate both to the vicin-
ity of the business (gravity) and to an attention-getting spot
near a stoplight or highway (selective perception). We propose
that the success factors arise as a result of both theoretical
perspectives. As a result, our goal is to identify latent factors
that lead to successful advertising on billboards. Therefore,
rather than trying to develop competing hypotheses about the
relative importance of the different success factors, we pose a
research question:
RQ2: What factors are related to the successful use of billboard
advertising, and what is the relative importance of different
billboard success factors?
We also pose the following question about potential modera-
tors of success-factor perceptions:
RQ3: Do perceptions of the factors related to the successful use
of billboard advertising vary by billboard usage, company size,
or company type?
The fourth research question ties together the decision to
continue using billboards with the factors that billboard users
believe are critical to success. Specifically, do the success factors
relate to the reasons for using billboards? If so, how? Too many
alternatives are possible to allow the development of plausible
competing hypotheses. For example, companies that think
visibility is an important reason to continue using billboards
could depend on any combination of message, format, or lo-
cation issues for the eye-catching success of their billboards.
Therefore, the present study will attempt to answer:
RQ4: How do the factors considered essential to billboard success
depend on the company’s reason to continue using billboards?
Finally, we pose the following question involving the same
moderators as above:
RQ5: Do billboard usage, company size, or company type
moderate the influence of reasons to continue using billboards on
factors related to the successful use of billboard advertising?
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
The sampling frame used was a national listing, provided by
the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, of more than
Winter 2006 25
5,000 companies known to have used billboards. A survey was
sent to 1,315 companies selected from the list using a simple
random-sampling technique. The cover letter promised con-
fidentiality of responses and offered respondents a summary
report of the findings upon request. Five weeks after the initial
mailing, a follow-up mailing was sent to firms that had not
yet responded.
Usable responses were obtained from 348 companies, in-
cluding 16 not currently using billboards. This small group
of nonusers was kept in the analyses to broaden the range
of available perspectives on billboard usage. Another 171
surveys were unusable or returned as undeliverable, produc-
ing an effective response rate of 30.4%. This response rate,
though not high in historic terms, is comparable to those of
many recent surveys in the business literature (e.g., Dennis
2003; Morrison and Haley 2003). Potential nonresponse bias
was assessed in two ways. Respondents to the first mailing
were compared with respondents to the second mailing in
terms of the number of employees and billboard usage levels.
The differences were not significant, suggesting that non-
response bias based on these dimensions was not a concern.
In addition, follow-up phone calls were made to a sample
of nonrespondents. Commonly cited reasons for failing to
respond included lack of time, company policies against
filling out surveys, and the discontinued employment of the
person to whom the mailing was addressed. These reasons
do not appear to be related to factors that would likely cause
bias in the results.
Measures
In developing questionnaire items for reasons to use billboards
and for executional effectiveness, we reviewed textbooks and
academic articles and conducted extensive interviews with
more than 20 personnel in outdoor advertising firms and
general advertising firms. Some internal company documents
were also examined. The preliminary list of items was pretested
on a group of six industry executives, and the final question-
naire was written based on feedback provided. For the items
measuring reasons for using billboards, seven-point scales
ranging from “not at all influential” to “highly influential”
were used. For the executional factors, seven-point scales with
the endpoints “not critical” and “critical” were used.
To determine whether the items went together as expected,
they were factor analyzed using principal axis analysis with
squared communalities on the diagonal of the correlation
matrix. Because varimax rotation gives distorted loadings
when factors are correlated, oblique rotation was used to give
a clearer factor structure. Coefficient α was calculated to as-
sess the reliability of the items in each factor, and the scores
for the individual items were averaged to obtain scale scores
for each factor.
26 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 1
Profile of Respondents

Frequency Percent

Type of business
Hotel 74 21.4
Restaurant 64 18.5
Retail store 49 14.2
Entertainment/tourism 44 12.7
Advertising or media 21 6.1
Gas station/mini market 17 4.9
Government or nonprofit 16 4.6
Auto dealership 13 3.8
Real estate 11 3.2
Banking and insurance 10 2.9
Manufactured product 6 1.7
Other 21 6.1
Total 346 100.0
Billboards used per month*
0 16 4.6
1 55 15.9
2–4 105 30.4
5–9 62 18.0
10–19 38 11.0
20 or more 69 20.0
Total 345 100.0
Number of employees
10 or less 52 15.2
11 to 25 63 18.4
26 to 50 57 16.6
51 to 100 50 14.6
101 to 500 62 18.1
501 or more 59 17.2
All 343 100.0

* Numbers of usable surveys vary across questions because of missing data. Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Profile of Responding Businesses
Table 1 presents a profile of the survey respondents. The re-
spondents represent a wide range of business types, including
both travel-related businesses (hotels, restaurants, retail stores,
entertainment/tourism, and gas stations/mini marts) and general
advertisers. Respondents use 0 to 20 or more billboards in a typi-
cal month, with 46% using from 1 to 4. Company size ranges
from 10 or fewer employees to more than 500. Just over half of
the companies (50.1%) have 50 or fewer employees, indicating
that small businesses are well represented in the sample.
expected and the scales show acceptable reliabilities, with α
coefficients ranging from .76 to .93. The scale means range from
5.45 to 5.77, much closer to the “highly influential” value of 7
on the response alternatives than the “not at all influential” value
of 1. As shown in the table, the factors are labeled as follows:
Visibility
Companies use billboards because they provide high visibility
to the target audience; they are easily seen, make a strong
impression, and are visible 24 hours a day.

RESULTS
Media Efficiency
Hypothesis 1
From a media-planning standpoint, companies use billboards
Table 2 shows means, factor loadings, and scale reliabilities for for their efficiency in terms of reach, frequency, and cost per
items related to reasons for using billboards. The items load as thousand exposures.
 Winter 2006 27

TABLE 2
Factors Influencing the Decision to Continue Using Billboards

Standard Item
Factor and items Meana deviation loadingb Coefficient�

Visibility 5.771 1.21 .84

Easily seen and noticed 5.91 1.29 .91
Make a powerful visual impression 5.73 1.37 .79
Visible 24 hours a day 5.67 1.50 .73
Media efficiency 5.632 1.30 .85
Allow for repeated exposures to our message 5.85 1.38 .88
Reach a high proportion of our target audience 5.75 1.48 .82
Are cost effective compared to other media 5.27 1.58 .76
Local presence 5.453 1.31 .76
Generate awareness and name recognition
in close proximity to our business 5.86 1.36 .68
Maintain brand presence in the market
over time and between flights of other media 5.41 1.62 .71
Provide a “last hit” close to the time the
consumer makes a purchase decision 5.08 1.74 .71
Tangible response 5.453 1.48 .93
Bring customers to our place of business 5.57 1.53 .91
Increase our sales 5.41 1.56 .93
Increase shopper/visitor traffic 5.36 1.62 .90
a
Respondents were asked to indicate how influential the items were in their decision to continue using billboards. The response scale ranged from 1 to
7, with 1 = not at all influential and 7 = highly influential. Factor means with different superscripts differ significantly (F > 5.84, p < .02). A planned
contrast of visibility and media efficiency versus local presence and tangible response is also significant (F = 30.45, with 1 and 327 df, p = 0).
b
From a principal axis factor analysis with oblique (promax) rotation. Correlations between factors range from .53 to .68.

Local Presence Research Question 1

Aspects of billboard location that influence use include gener-
ating awareness in close proximity to the business, maintaining
brand presence, and providing a “last hit” close to the place
of business.
Tangible Response
Producing a tangible consumer response, such as increasing
traffic or sales, also influences a company’s decision to continue
using billboards.
Table 2 also provides the results for the test of the
competing hypotheses H1a and H1b. While respondents
consider all four factors to be influential, the two factors
that are more related to selective-perception issues (vis-
ibility and media efficiency) are each rated significantly
higher than those that reflect retail gravity (local presence
and tangible response) (F > 5.84, p < .02). Furthermore, a
simultaneous comparison of the two gravity factors versus
the two selective-perception factors is highly significant
(F = 30.45, p = 0). Therefore, H1b is supported and H1a
is contradicted.
Table 3 shows the effects of billboard usage (0–4 versus 5 or
more per month), company size (1–50 employees versus 51 or
more), company type (travel-related or not), and their interac-
tions on the reasons for using billboards. The factors are coded
as 1/–1 dummy variables for the main effects, and their two- and
three-way products represent the interaction terms. Using these
predictors in a regression model yields p values for each predic-
tor that are identical to those produced by a standard three-way
analysis of variance. The benefit of the regression approach is
that the coefficients directly indicate the magnitudes of the
effects. For example, travel-related companies (Type = 1) rate
the importance of local presence .16 above the overall mean,
controlling for the effects of the other variables in the model,
whereas other companies (Type = –1) rate local presence .16
below the mean. Significant interaction terms are added to the
values of the related main effects plus the grand mean to pro-
vide cell means. Visibility, for example, is estimated at 6.00 for
large companies that are heavy billboard users (grand mean of
5.77 + .25 – .22 + .20), and at 5.10 for large companies that
are light billboard users (5.77 – .25 – .22 − .20).
The main effects in Table 3 indicate that all four reasons to
28 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 3
Regression of Reasons to Continue Using Billboards on Company Characteristicsa
Dependent Billboard Company Company Use × size
variable R2 use size type Use × size Use × type Size × type × type

Visibility .079** .25** −.22** .10 .20** –.00 −.05 −.01

Media .146** .51** −.26** .02 .19** –.01 −.02 −.09
efficiency
Local .118** .42** −.20* .16* .21** .00 −.01 −.03
presence
Tangible .106** .32** −.39** .28** .16 .00 .15 .01
response
Note: Entries for main effects and interactions are unstandardized regression coefficients for effects-coded indicator variables, interpreted as departures
from the overall mean controlling for the other predictors (e.g., heavy users of billboards rate visibility .25 greater than average, whereas light users rate
visibility .25 lower than average). P values for the coefficients are identical to those from three-way univariate ANOVAs (analyses of variance). All overall
tests have seven df and all factors and interactions have one df. Error df range from 322 to 326.
a
Billboard use is heavy (5 or more) versus light (0–4) billboards used per month. Company size is large (51 or more employees) versus small (50 or fewer
employees). Company type is travel-related (hotels, restaurants, retail stores, entertainment/tourism, and gas stations/mini marts) versus nontravel-related
(all other).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.

continue using billboards are rated higher by heavy users and
smaller companies. Travel-related companies also give higher
ratings than other companies to local presence and tangible
response to billboards. However, the main effects of billboard
usage and company size are qualified by significant two-way
interactions for visibility, efficiency, and presence. (The interac-
tion for response approaches significance, with p = .068.)
For visibility, large companies that are light users of bill-
boards give relatively lower ratings (M = 5.10) than other
companies (means range from 5.94 to 6.04). Media efficiency
is high in importance to heavy users of billboards regardless
of company size (small, M = 6.21; large, M = 6.07), less im-
portant to small companies that make lower use of billboards
(M = 5.57), and considerably less important to large light users
(M = 4.66). A similar pattern is found for the importance of
local presence, with comparable means for heavy users (small,
M = 5.85; large, M = 5.88), a lower mean for small light users
(5.44), and an even lower mean for large light users (4.62). Fi-
nally, tangible response is most important to small companies
that make heavy use of billboards (M = 6.00), least important
to large light users (M = 4.58), and in-between for small light
users (M = 5.68) and large heavy users (M = 5.55).
Research Questions 2 and 3
Table 4 shows that the items designed to assess perceptions
of the factors critical to billboard success go together to form
eight scales. Three scales have relatively low reliabilities, rang-
ing from .62 to .68, but the rest have reliabilities above the
conventionally accepted level of .70. The means range from
4.69 to 6.50, closer to the “critical” than the “not critical”
endpoints of the response alternatives. The relative magnitudes
of the means answer RQ2, and regressions similar to those
shown in Table 3 answer RQ3.
Name Identification, Location, Readability, and Clarity
Four factors have mean ratings above six on a seven-point
scale, ranging from 6.02 to 6.50. The highest-rated factor,
name identification, refers to the need to get the company
or brand name across to the consumer. Next are location and
readability. Location involves whether the billboard is at an
effective site, and readability involves how well the typeface,
colors, and contrast contribute to legibility. In fourth place is
clarity. Clarity contributes to readability, though it deals more
with whether the billboard has an obvious, concise message
than with how the message is actually presented.
Integrated Marketing Communications and Visuals
These two factors have mean ratings above five on the seven-
point scale. The integrated marketing communications factor
(IMC; M = 5.24) comprises two questions about the message
reinforcing an overall communications strategy. Three ques-
tions about billboards’ visual elements form the visuals factor
(M = 5.12).
Creative and Information
The final two factors score below five but above the midpoint
of the scale (M = 4.77 and 4.69, respectively). Creative consists
of three items suggesting clever or novel copy and illustra-
 Winter 2006 29

TABLE 4
Perceptions of Factors Critical to Billboard Success
Standard Item Coefficient
Factor and items Meana deviation loadingb α

Name identification 6.50 .80 .62

Designing the billboard so our company or brand name registers quickly
with consumers 6.53 .94 .70
Prominently featuring the name of our company or the products and
services we offer 6.47 .94 .69
Location of billboard 6.33 .84 .68
The billboard is strategically located 6.56 .77 .64
The billboard is on a “prime site” 6.10 1.14 .90
Readability 6.33 .72 .71
Typeface that is well spaced and legible from a distance 6.62 .64 .77
Clear contrast between background, illustration, and copy 6.48 .83 .85
Using strong colors in the ad 6.12 1.12 .54
Using headlines that stand out in the ad 6.09 1.22 .50
Clarity 6.02 .95 .64
Making one single point effectively 6.17 1.12 .73
Using a simple background 6.01 1.17 .61
Using no more than seven or eight words in the copy 5.83 1.46 .57
Integrated marketing communications 5.24 1.51 .76
The message on the billboard must reinforce our advertising in other
media 5.43 1.60 .79
The billboard must be one part of a large communications plan designed
to achieve our company’s objectives 5.06 1.77 .78
Visuals 5.12 1.43 .82
Including a powerful visual image in the form of an illustration 5.23 1.69 .78
The visuals on the billboard are of a quality that is similar to a work
of art 5.08 1.64 .68
Making effective use of illustrations 5.04 1.67 .88
Creative 4.77 1.45 .82
Combining creative copy with a creative illustration 5.01 1.64 .79
Use of a clever slogan or phrase 4.76 1.72 .69
Using novel copy and/or illustrations 4.54 1.68 .87
Information 4.69 1.29 .77
The principal message clearly indicates the uniqueness of our product or
service 5.27 1.54 .57
Giving information about the benefits of our product 4.72 1.69 .65
Providing a specific reason why the consumer should use our products/
services 4.51 1.69 .86
The message describes specific advantages relative to our competition 4.29 1.78 .60
a
Respondents were asked to indicate which of the items were critical to the success of billboards that advertised their business. The response scale ranged
from 1 to 7, with 1 = not critical and 7 = critical.
b
From a principal axis factor analysis with oblique (promax) rotation. Correlations between factors range from −.02 to .62.

tions. Information comprises four items on the uniqueness or
advantages of the product or service.
Moderator Effects
Table 5 has the same format and interpretation as Table 3.
It indicates that six of the eight factors associated with suc-
cessful billboard advertising do not vary by billboard usage,
company size and type, or their interactions. Ratings of loca-
tion are influenced by three, two-way interactions: use × size,
use × type, and size × type. Location is seen as less critical to
small nontravel companies that make heavy use of billboards
(M = 6.06) and more critical to travel-related companies that
are small or use billboards extensively (M = 6.54). Other
combinations of the three factors rate location as intermediate
in importance.
Readability shows a single two-way interaction. It is
somewhat more important for small travel-related companies
30 The Journal of Advertising

TABLE 5
Regression of Billboard Success Factors on Company Characteristics
Dependent Billboard Company Company Use × size
variable R2 use size type Use × size Use × type Size × type × type

Name ID .021 .05 −.02 .03 .04 .02 −.02 .06

Location .081** −.03 .04 .09 .14** .15** −.10* −.05
Readability .044* .07 –.00 .02 .08 .01 −.11* .02
Clarity .023 .09 .01 .02 −.06 .04 −.11 −.07
IMC .017 .14 .03 −.08 .08 .03 −.08 −.08
Visuals .020 −.10 −.05 .02 .07 −.04 −.11 −.01
Creative .017 .02 .01 −.09 .08 −.05 −.14 −.00
Information .012 −.05 −.03 −.02 −.01 .01 −.01 .15
Note: IMC = integrated marketing communications.
Entries for main effects and interactions are unstandardized regression coefficients for effects-coded indicator variables, interpreted as departures from the
overall mean controlling for the other predictors (e.g., heavy billboard use increases the importance of location by .14 for large companies, but reduces it
by .14 for small companies). P values for the coefficients are identical to those from three-way univariate ANOVAs (analyses of variance). All overall tests
have seven df and all factors and interactions have one df. Error df range from 325 to 330.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.

(M = 6.47) and large non–travel-related companies (M = 6.41)
than for large travel-related companies (M = 6.24) or small
non–travel-related companies (M = 6.20).
Research Questions 4 and 5
Addressing RQ4 and RQ5, Table 6 shows how perceptions of
the success factors relate to the factors underlying the decision
to continue using billboards (RQ4) and how these relationships
vary depending on company characteristics (RQ5). To address
both questions, the sample was divided into eight groups
reflecting all combinations of high and low billboard usage,
small and large company size, and travel- versus non–travel-
related companies. The overall results for RQ4 are shown in
the “total sample” line for each success factor, which gives the
unstandardized regression coefficients for the four predictor
variables, constrained to be equal across the groups. The p value
for the χ2 test indicates whether or not the hypothesis of equal-
ity across groups should be rejected, which is the initial test
of RQ5. For additional evidence, LISREL modification indices
were examined to find coefficients that differed significantly
in particular groups, even if the hypothesis of overall equality
was not rejected. Because this examination involved 256 dif-
ferent significant tests (four predictors × eight groups × eight
dependent variables), almost 13 significant results could be
expected under the traditional .05 α level due simply to ran-
dom sampling error. Therefore, a more conservative .01 level
was used for the supplemental tests.
The overall results for clarity indicate that as visibility be-
comes more important as a reason to continue using billboards,
clarity becomes more important to the success of billboards. The p
value for the equality constraint across groups approaches signifi-
cance (p = .07), and the modification indices point to two groups
that have noticeably different coefficients than the majority. For
large travel-related companies that make low use of billboards,
media efficiency has a strong negative effect on the importance
of billboard clarity. For small non–travel-related companies that
make high use of billboards, perceptions of local presence have
a negative effect on the importance of clarity. After these two
groups are removed from the total sample, the p value for the
equality constraints on the regression coefficients indicates little
variation across the remaining six groups (p = .53).
Three other success factors also show differing relationships
with the predictors across groups. The equality constraint for
visuals is significant ( p = .01), and freeing coefficients in two
groups improves model fit substantially ( p ≤ .003). Media
efficiency has a positive coefficient for large travel-related
companies that make low use of billboards, and an even larger
coefficient in small travel-related companies with low usage.
For these companies, local presence has a negative coefficient.
After these two groups are removed from the overall sample,
local presence has a positive effect and media efficiency a nega-
tive effect on visuals in the remaining groups.
Information has only one group that departs from the
majority. For large non–travel-related companies that use
few billboards, tangible response has a strong negative effect
on the importance of information. None of the predictors are
significant in the remaining groups. Similarly, the reasons to
use billboards have no effect on perceptions of IMC in the
majority of the groups. Two groups are exceptions. In large
travel-related companies that use few billboards, visibility has
a positive effect on IMC as a billboard success factor. In large
non–travel-related companies that use few billboards, local
presence has a negative effect on IMC.
 Winter 2006 31

TABLE 6
Regression of Success Factors on Reasons to Continue Using Billboards

Local Media
Dependent Change p for Tangible pres- Visi- effi-
variable χ2 df p in χ2 change Description n response ence bility ciency

Clarity 39.92 28 .07 Total sample 309 –.10 –.07 .18* .07
31.44 27 .25 8.48 .004 Low use/large/travel 50 –.10 –.07 .19* –.90**
24.73 26 .53 6.71 .010 High use/small/nontravel 15 –.11 –.52** .20** .07
All others 244 –.11 –.01 .20** .07
Readability 34.39 28 .19 Total sample 314 .21* –.08 .22** .05
Visuals 47.34 28 .01 Total sample 309 .02 .04 .19** –.05
38.31 27 .07 9.03 .003 Low use/large/travel 37 .01 .04 .19** .40*
20.16 25 .74 18.15 .000 Low use/small/travel 50 –.01 –.47** .16** .54**
All others 222 –.01 .14 .16** –.17*
Creative 32.14 28 .27 Total sample 309 .18** –.07 .01 .00
Name ID 26.25 28 .56 Total sample 314 –.10 .39** .20** –.11
Information 34.92 28 .17 Total sample 314 .07 .05 .00 .07
25.14 27 .58 9.78 .002 Low use/large/nontravel 15 –.90** .05 .02 .08
All other 299 .08 .05 .02 .08
Location 29.42 28 .39 Total sample 309 .24** .11 .18* –.12
IMC 32.69 28 .25 Total sample 314 .03 .11 .06 .00
24.09 27 .63 8.60 .003 Low use/large/travel 37 .00 .10 .47** .01
17.43 26 .90 6.66 .010 Low use/large/nontravel 15 .00 –.68* .03 .01
All other 262 .00 .12 .03 .01

Note: IMC = integrated marketing communications.

The last four columns are unstandardized regression coefficients produced in a multisample LISREL analysis. Samples represent the eight combinations of
high/low billboard use, large/small company size, and travel/nontravel businesses. Coefficients in the “total sample” and “all other” rows are constrained
to be equal across groups. One or more coefficients in the remaining rows vary significantly ( p < .01) from the other groups. Because the variance
explained differs across groups, even when the coefficients are constrained to be equal, R2 for the combined results is not meaningful.

For the remaining four success factors—readability, creative,
name identification, and location—the regression coefficients
are consistent across all eight groups. Tangible response in-
creases ratings of readability, creative, and location as billboard
success factors. Visibility increases ratings of readability, name
identification, and location. Ratings of name identification are
also increased by local presence.
DISCUSSION
This study draws on textbook discussions and journal ar-
ticles, plus interviews with outdoor-advertising personnel,
to develop measures of factors that influence the decision to
continue using billboards and that are critical to billboards’
success. It confirms the importance of several factors through
a survey of businesses that are using or have used billboard
advertising. The findings also indicate the relative importance
of the various factors, show how perceptions of the billboard
success factors are influenced by businesses’ reasons for using
billboards, and identify moderators of the variables and their
interrelationships.
Visibility and media efficiency are the most important in-
fluences on the decision to continue using billboards. These
attributes help billboards to be noticed and read rather than
screened out through the process of selective perception. Also
important are local presence and tangible response, which are
both related to retail gravity issues in media strategy. In other
words, billboards are often useful in reaching motorists near
the time and place of a purchase decision, so these factors are
especially important to travel-related companies. Together,
the factors suggest that the ability to place attention-getting
billboards close to the point of sale is an especially important
reason to use billboards. These features are consistent with the
concept of recency planning, which suggests the need to expose
the message to the consumer when and where the consumer
is ready to make a purchase.
The factors perceived as being most critical to billboard
success involve clear, concise communication at an appropri-
ate location. Coordinating the message on billboards with
the company’s other advertising is lower in importance, and
visuals, creative, and competitive information are lower still.
That is, companies are more concerned with using typeface,
contrast, color, and design to make the company or brand name
register effectively than they are with considerations that may
play a greater role in other media. Last-minute reminders of
an established brand name may be all many companies expect
32 The Journal of Advertising
of their billboards. Of course, billboards are not limited to
simple name identification. Chick-fil-A, for example, has used
an eye-catching creative strategy by putting three-dimensional
cows and 48-foot-long “rubber chickens” on its billboards to
help position the chain as a likable alternative to other chains
(see www.richards.com).
The reasons for using billboards influence perceptions of all
the success factors for at least some categories of respondents.
Visibility has the broadest effect, increasing the relevance of
clarity, readability, visuals, name identification, and location.
In essence, companies that want their billboards to be noticed
are not satisfied with simply getting people’s attention; they
believe they must be in the right place and get their message
across clearly to be effective. Visibility also has a strong effect
on the importance of integrated marketing communications
for large travel-related companies that are light users of bill-
boards. For these companies, billboards are important as part
of the overall communications effort rather than as a core
advertising tool.
Company size and billboard usage moderate perceptions of
all four reasons for using billboards. In general, all the reasons
are more critical for small companies and heavier users. How-
ever, the use × size interaction leads to the greatest differences
being observed for large companies that use few billboards.
These companies rate all four reasons above the midpoint of
the response scale on average, so they do not consider them to
be unimportant. They may have larger advertising budgets and
more media options than smaller companies, or focus more on
the effects of their other advertising efforts, than companies
that use billboards extensively.
Unlike the reasons for using billboards, it is notable that
the success factors are generally consistent across companies.
Regardless of company size and type and degree of billboard
usage, which influence the reasons for using billboards, com-
panies have common perceptions of appropriate billboard
characteristics. Experience presumably teaches businesses
what works and does not work with billboards. Because
heavy and light users have similar perceptions, even lim-
ited experience appears to be sufficient to shape companies’
perceptions. Advertising agencies and outdoor-advertising
firms may also play a role by communicating the importance
of the success factors to their clients. Two exceptions to the
overall consistency are location and readability. The readabil-
ity effect has no clear interpretation, because it shows small
travel-related companies having views similar to those of
large non–travel-related companies, and large travel-related
companies matching small non–travel-related ones. Given
the number of effects reported in Table 5, this pattern may
simply arise from sampling error. The influences on percep-
tions of location are more plausible, because travel-related
companies especially want to influence motorists close to the
point of sale. Location is most important to travel-related
companies when they are small or heavy users of billboards.
In either case, the company may rely on billboards—either
by making heavy use of them, or by not having the resources
to find effective media alternatives.
Companies that emphasize tangible response as a reason
for using billboards also place greater weight on readability,
location, and creative. Creative is the second-lowest rated of all
the success factors, but companies appear to see it as helping
billboards affect people’s behavior. Emphasizing local pres-
ence as a reason for using billboards increases the importance
of name identification. This connection is logical, because
reaching people close to the time and place of a purchase
decision will not benefit the advertiser if the wrong name is
communicated. Conversely, emphasizing local presence reduces
the importance of clarity, visuals, and integrated marketing
communications for certain categories of companies, but the
groups are generally small and distinct in terms of billboard
usage, company size, and company type. Media efficiency has
a mix of positive and negative influences on visuals as a success
factor. For large travel-related companies that make low use of
billboards, media efficiency increases the importance of visuals
but reduces the importance of clarity, suggesting that these
companies are more interested in illustrating their message
than in verbally communicating it.
CONCLUSION
Previous survey research has presented evidence on companies’
experience with billboards, their perceptions of billboards
versus other media, and their estimate of the impact of a
billboard ban on sales (Taylor and Franke 2003). This study
focuses on companies’ reasons for using billboards and their
views on factors that are critical to billboards’ success. Future
research could add to the approaches of these studies in several
ways. Expanded surveys of nonusers or former users of bill-
boards would provide a useful comparison to the perspectives
of current billboard users and give additional insights on the
strengths and weaknesses of this form of outdoor advertising.
For example, do nonusers value different advertising attributes
than users, or do they have different beliefs about the ability
of billboards to provide visibility, media efficiency, local pres-
ence, and tangible response? Do users of other media such as
local radio or newspapers deal with selective perception and
retail gravity in a different way than billboard users, or do they
have distinctive goals for their advertising, such as supporting
short-term sales promotions or communicating information
about a variety of products?
Qualitative research could probe more deeply into why
companies feel as they do. For example, why is name identi-
fication considered to be so much more critical to billboard
success than other forms of information? Why are the creative
aspects of billboards given only a moderate rating, considering

the “larger than life” potential of billboards for advertising
creativity (e.g., Fraser 1991)? Content analyses could extend
previous studies such as Blasko (1985) and Taylor (1997) to
document whether the characteristics of billboards actually
reflect business perceptions of appropriate billboard charac-
teristics. Most important, research could examine whether
businesses are correct in their views of billboard characteristics
that lead to success. Laboratory experiments may be used to
test how attitudes and intentions are influenced by billboard
characteristics. Given sufficient resources, longitudinal analysis
of sales or store traffic can demonstrate the effects of actual
billboard campaigns (e.g., Bhargava and Donthu 1999).
REFERENCES
Allaway, Arthur W., and David Berkowitz (2006), “Modeling
Market Adoption of a Retail Innovation over Time and
Space,” Department of Management and Marketing, Uni-
versity of Alabama, working paper.
———, ———, and Giles D’Souza (2003), “Spatial Diffusion of
a New Loyalty Program Through a Retail Market,” Journal
of Retailing, 79 (3), 137–151.
Armstrong, J. Scott, Roderick J. Brodie, and Andrew G. Parsons
(2001), “Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Re-
view and Publication Audit,” Marketing Letters, 12 (May),
171–187.
Assael, Henry (1981), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action,
Boston: Kent.
Bell, David, Teck-Hua Ho, and Christopher Tang (1998),
“Determining Where to Shop: Fixed and Variable Costs
of Shopping,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (August),
352–369.
Bhargava, Mukesh, and Naveen Donthu (1999), “Sales Response
to Outdoor Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 39
(July/August), 7–18.
———, ———, and Rosanne Caron (1994), “Improving the
Effectiveness of Outdoor Advertising,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 34 (March/April), 46–55.
Blasko, Vincent J. (1985), “A Content Analysis of the Creative
Characteristics of Outdoor Advertising: National Vs. Re-
gional Differences,” in Proceedings of the 1985 Conference of
the American Academy of Advertising, Nancy Stephens, ed.,
Tempe, AZ, 17–21.
Burgoon, Michael, Frank Hunsaker, and Edwin Dawson (1994),
Human Communication, London: Sage.
Burton, Phillip Ward (1983), Advertising Copywriting, 5th ed.,
Columbus, OH: Grid.
Cannon, Hugh M., and Edward Riordan (1994), “Effective Reach
and Frequency: Does It Really Make Sense?” Journal of Ad-
vertising Research, 34 (2), 19–29.
Celsi, Richard L., and Jerry C. Olson (1988), “The Role of Involve-
ment in Attention and Comprehension Processes,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210–224.
Dennis, William J. (2003), “Raising Response Rates in Mail Sur-
veys of Small Business Owners: Results of an Experiment,”
Journal of Small Business Management, 41 (3), 278–295.
Winter 2006 33
Donthu, Naveen, Joseph Cherian, and Mukesh Bhargava (1993),
“Factors Influencing Recall of Outdoor Advertising,” Journal
of Advertising Research, 33 (3), 64–72.
Ephron, Erwin (1997), “Recency Planning,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 37 (4), 61–66.
——— (2004), “Sauce for the Outdoor Goose,” The Ephron Letter
(January), available at www.oaaa.org/outdoor/sales/files/out-
door_01_04.pdf (accessed July 22, 2005).
Fitts, Robert L., and Wendell C. Hewett (1977), “Utilizing the
Before After with Control Group Experimental Design to
Evaluate an Outdoor Advertising Campaign,” Journal of
Advertising, 6 (1), 26–39.
Fraser, James (1991), The American Billboard: 100 Years, New
York: Harry N. Abrams.
Godin, Seth (1999), Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers into
Friends and Friends into Customers, New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Hewett, Wendell C. (1975), “The Significance of Human Cu-
riosity in an Outdoor Advertising Experiment,” Journal of
Business, 48 (1), 108–110.
Huff, David (1964), “Defining and Estimating a Trading Area,”
Journal of Marketing, 28 (February), 34–38.
Katz, Helen (2003), The Media Handbook: A Complete Guide to
Advertising Media Selection, Planning, Research, and Buying,
2nd ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelley, Larry D., and Donald W. Jugenheimer (2004), Advertising
Media Planning: A Brand Management Approach, Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Morrison, Margaret A., and Eric Haley (2003), “Account Planners’
Views on How Their Work Is and Should Be Evaluated,”
Journal of Advertising, 32 (Summer), 7–16.
Mowen, John C., and Michael Minor (1998), Consumer Behavior,
5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Murray, George B., and John R. Jenkins (1992), “The Concept
of Effective Reach in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 32 (3), 34–42.
Nelson, Dick, and John Niles (2000), “A Planning Template for
Nonwork Travel and Transit-Oriented Development,” Inter-
national Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies,
available at www.globaltelematics.com/mineta/report1.pdf
(accessed December 12, 2005).
OAAA (Outdoor Advertising Association of America) (2004),
“Introduce Yourself to Outdoor Advertising,” available at
www.oaaa.org/outdoor/ (accessed April 2, 2004).
Reilly, William J. (1931), The Law of Retail Gravitation, New
York: Knickerbocker Press.
Sissors, Jack Z., and Roger B. Baron (2002), Advertising Media
Planning, 6th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, Charles R. (1997), “A Technology Whose Time Has Come
or the Same Old Litter on a Stick? An Analysis of Changeable
Message Billboards,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
16 (2), 179–186.
———, and George R. Franke (2003), “Business Perceptions
of the Role of Billboards in the U.S. Economy,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 43 (June), 150–161.
Traffic Audit Bureau (1977), Planning for Out-of-Home Media, New
York: Malbridge, 37–39.
34 The Journal of Advertising

Vanden Bergh, Bruce G., and Helen Katz (1999), Advertising
Principles: Choice, Challenge, Change, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC
Press.
Woodside, Arch (1990), “Outdoor Advertising as Experi-
ments,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18 (3),
229–237.
Zenith Optimedia (2005), “Ad Growth Stable with Healthy
Hotspots,” available at www.zenithoptimedia.com/gff/pdf/
Adspend%20December%2005.pdf (accessed December 5,
2005).